How precise do models need to be for 3d printing?Scaling objects with constant wall thickness for 3D printingHelp! 3D Printing Corals for Aquarium DecorationsWhat can I do about a printjob in progress that starts to warp/curl on the edges?Getting started: shell passes not fusing in x/y, and a slanted wavy pattern on vertical wallsIs possible print this level of detail?Print quality of Kossel clone for Print in Place modelsExtruder drive cog slipping on filamentWhat causes ripples on part of first layer?Makerbot Replicator (5th generation) poor print qualityIs there any better way to make this transparent dome?
Avoiding repetition when using the "snprintf idiom" to write text
What was the first science fiction or fantasy multiple choice book?
Why do movie directors use brown tint on Mexico cities?
Hard for me to understand one tip written in "The as-if rule" of cppreference
What verb for taking advantage fits in "I don't want to ________ on the friendship"?
What happens if a caster is surprised while casting a spell with a long casting time?
Can US Supreme Court justices / judges be "rotated" out against their will?
Journal standards vs. personal standards
Reusable spacecraft: why still have fairings detach, instead of open/close?
Why doesn't SpaceX land boosters in Africa?
How do banks maintain reserves?
Why are examinees often not allowed to leave during the start and end of an exam?
How can an inexperienced GM keep a game fun for experienced players?
"I am [the / an] owner of a bookstore"?
Should Catholics in a state of grace call themselves sinners?
What was the point of separating stdout and stderr?
Rear derailleur got caught in the spokes, what could be a root cause
Robots in a spaceship
Does a lens with a bigger max. aperture focus faster than a lens with a smaller max. aperture?
How does the 'five minute adventuring day' affect class balance?
English idiomatic equivalents of 能骗就骗 (if you can cheat, then cheat)
What election rules and voting rights are guaranteed by the US Constitution?
Could all three Gorgons turn people to stone, or just Medusa?
What is the meaning of 'shout over' in a sentence exactly?
How precise do models need to be for 3d printing?
Scaling objects with constant wall thickness for 3D printingHelp! 3D Printing Corals for Aquarium DecorationsWhat can I do about a printjob in progress that starts to warp/curl on the edges?Getting started: shell passes not fusing in x/y, and a slanted wavy pattern on vertical wallsIs possible print this level of detail?Print quality of Kossel clone for Print in Place modelsExtruder drive cog slipping on filamentWhat causes ripples on part of first layer?Makerbot Replicator (5th generation) poor print qualityIs there any better way to make this transparent dome?
$begingroup$
I'm not talking about making something that's outright disproportionate of course. I've been working in Blender and I've use Absolute grid Snap to snap my vertices to the grid. The problem is that it (didn't seem) to always work perfectly for centimeters, and seemed to work better for meters.
(edit: I've learned what the problem was and it was simply the placement of the vertices in side view, being at slightly different elevations. I'm going to emphasize that the difference was very slight. It was just enough to show up in the measurements. When I switched from front view to side view I was able to adjust the elevation to the grid and that fixed the problem.)
print-quality
asked Jun 21 at 10:59
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm not talking about making something that's outright disproportionate of course. I've been working in Blender and I've use Absolute grid Snap to snap my vertices to the grid. The problem is that it (didn't seem) to always work perfectly for centimeters, and seemed to work better for meters.
(edit: I've learned what the problem was and it was simply the placement of the vertices in side view, being at slightly different elevations. I'm going to emphasize that the difference was very slight. It was just enough to show up in the measurements. When I switched from front view to side view I was able to adjust the elevation to the grid and that fixed the problem.)
print-quality
asked Jun 21 at 10:59
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It should be ok.
$endgroup$
– user77232
Jun 21 at 11:33
2
$begingroup$
@user77232: That's not something you can say unconditionally.
$endgroup$
– R..
Jun 21 at 12:14
1
$begingroup$
Why not turn off GridSnap if your primary concern is the length of a feature, rather than the endpoints of the feature?
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jun 21 at 13:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm not talking about making something that's outright disproportionate of course. I've been working in Blender and I've use Absolute grid Snap to snap my vertices to the grid. The problem is that it (didn't seem) to always work perfectly for centimeters, and seemed to work better for meters.
(edit: I've learned what the problem was and it was simply the placement of the vertices in side view, being at slightly different elevations. I'm going to emphasize that the difference was very slight. It was just enough to show up in the measurements. When I switched from front view to side view I was able to adjust the elevation to the grid and that fixed the problem.)
print-quality
asked Jun 21 at 10:59
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
$endgroup$
I'm not talking about making something that's outright disproportionate of course. I've been working in Blender and I've use Absolute grid Snap to snap my vertices to the grid. The problem is that it (didn't seem) to always work perfectly for centimeters, and seemed to work better for meters.
(edit: I've learned what the problem was and it was simply the placement of the vertices in side view, being at slightly different elevations. I'm going to emphasize that the difference was very slight. It was just enough to show up in the measurements. When I switched from front view to side view I was able to adjust the elevation to the grid and that fixed the problem.)
print-quality
print-quality
asked Jun 21 at 10:59
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
asked Jun 21 at 10:59
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
edited Jun 22 at 0:59
Big Mike
asked Jun 21 at 10:59
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
asked Jun 21 at 10:59
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
asked Jun 21 at 10:59
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
214 bronze badges
$begingroup$
It should be ok.
$endgroup$
– user77232
Jun 21 at 11:33
2
$begingroup$
@user77232: That's not something you can say unconditionally.
$endgroup$
– R..
Jun 21 at 12:14
1
$begingroup$
Why not turn off GridSnap if your primary concern is the length of a feature, rather than the endpoints of the feature?
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jun 21 at 13:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It should be ok.
$endgroup$
– user77232
Jun 21 at 11:33
2
$begingroup$
@user77232: That's not something you can say unconditionally.
$endgroup$
– R..
Jun 21 at 12:14
1
$begingroup$
Why not turn off GridSnap if your primary concern is the length of a feature, rather than the endpoints of the feature?
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jun 21 at 13:07
$begingroup$
It should be ok.
$endgroup$
– user77232
Jun 21 at 11:33
$begingroup$
It should be ok.
$endgroup$
– user77232
Jun 21 at 11:33
2
2
$begingroup$
@user77232: That's not something you can say unconditionally.
$endgroup$
– R..
Jun 21 at 12:14
$begingroup$
@user77232: That's not something you can say unconditionally.
$endgroup$
– R..
Jun 21 at 12:14
1
1
$begingroup$
Why not turn off GridSnap if your primary concern is the length of a feature, rather than the endpoints of the feature?
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jun 21 at 13:07
$begingroup$
Why not turn off GridSnap if your primary concern is the length of a feature, rather than the endpoints of the feature?
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jun 21 at 13:07
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It depends on what you're working on. If you're producing mechanical/functional parts (even if that just means having to connect to one another or to some non-printed part), 3 mm (0.3 cm) error is almost surely going to prevent them from working. Even 0.3 mm error might be a problem.
If you're doing standalone prints that don't have to interface with anything else, e.g. art, non-articulated figurines, etc., then it becomes just a question of what's visually acceptable, and that's a matter both of scale and of the detail level you want. For typical tabletop-RPG scale, for example, most of the acutal visual features are going to be smaller than 3 mm, so that much error is not going to work out. It might work for large busts, though.
In any case, I would recommend trying to solve the underlying problem. Either change your grid snap, or work at a larger scale and just scale down the final model.
answered Jun 21 at 12:38
R..R..
9522 silver badges12 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Welcome to the SE 3D Printing site. Your questions are also welcome, as well as your answers to your questions, and the questions of others.
I am not a Blender user. I use CAD systems because most of what I do I want to have a certain dimensional precision.
If the problem is as simple as "The overall object is designed to be 7.345 centimeters but I want it to be 7.000 centimeters," you can fix that when you print the model. Use the scaling feature of your slicer to scale by $(7.000/7.345)$ or $95.303%$. It will print as the size you want.
The problem may be deeper, though, in that you may be having trouble setting points within the model where you want them. In that case, the snap-to-grid feature is distorting your model's appearance and geometry, and there is nothing you can do to fix it.
If it can't be fixed by scaling, I would suggest that you should either turn off the snap-to features or set up a grid that matches the granularity you actually want for your design.
answered Jun 21 at 15:24
cmmcmm
2,2713 silver badges20 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
After some trouble shooting I realized what was wrong, and now it seems more like a non issue if anything. There's actually nothing wrong with the grid, and the vertices were snapped to it appropriately in top view. The problem was that that my vertices were not at the same elevation (in side view). The two seemed very close to being snapped appropriately on the grid in side view which is why it wasn't immediately obvious.
answered Jun 21 at 21:35
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Great that you found an answer. Don't forget to marked this as the accepted answer using the tick icon, so that it gets removed from the unanswered question queue. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– Greenonline♦
Jun 23 at 9:21
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "640"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2f3dprinting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10331%2fhow-precise-do-models-need-to-be-for-3d-printing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It depends on what you're working on. If you're producing mechanical/functional parts (even if that just means having to connect to one another or to some non-printed part), 3 mm (0.3 cm) error is almost surely going to prevent them from working. Even 0.3 mm error might be a problem.
If you're doing standalone prints that don't have to interface with anything else, e.g. art, non-articulated figurines, etc., then it becomes just a question of what's visually acceptable, and that's a matter both of scale and of the detail level you want. For typical tabletop-RPG scale, for example, most of the acutal visual features are going to be smaller than 3 mm, so that much error is not going to work out. It might work for large busts, though.
In any case, I would recommend trying to solve the underlying problem. Either change your grid snap, or work at a larger scale and just scale down the final model.
answered Jun 21 at 12:38
R..R..
9522 silver badges12 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It depends on what you're working on. If you're producing mechanical/functional parts (even if that just means having to connect to one another or to some non-printed part), 3 mm (0.3 cm) error is almost surely going to prevent them from working. Even 0.3 mm error might be a problem.
If you're doing standalone prints that don't have to interface with anything else, e.g. art, non-articulated figurines, etc., then it becomes just a question of what's visually acceptable, and that's a matter both of scale and of the detail level you want. For typical tabletop-RPG scale, for example, most of the acutal visual features are going to be smaller than 3 mm, so that much error is not going to work out. It might work for large busts, though.
In any case, I would recommend trying to solve the underlying problem. Either change your grid snap, or work at a larger scale and just scale down the final model.
answered Jun 21 at 12:38
R..R..
9522 silver badges12 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It depends on what you're working on. If you're producing mechanical/functional parts (even if that just means having to connect to one another or to some non-printed part), 3 mm (0.3 cm) error is almost surely going to prevent them from working. Even 0.3 mm error might be a problem.
If you're doing standalone prints that don't have to interface with anything else, e.g. art, non-articulated figurines, etc., then it becomes just a question of what's visually acceptable, and that's a matter both of scale and of the detail level you want. For typical tabletop-RPG scale, for example, most of the acutal visual features are going to be smaller than 3 mm, so that much error is not going to work out. It might work for large busts, though.
In any case, I would recommend trying to solve the underlying problem. Either change your grid snap, or work at a larger scale and just scale down the final model.
answered Jun 21 at 12:38
R..R..
9522 silver badges12 bronze badges
$endgroup$
It depends on what you're working on. If you're producing mechanical/functional parts (even if that just means having to connect to one another or to some non-printed part), 3 mm (0.3 cm) error is almost surely going to prevent them from working. Even 0.3 mm error might be a problem.
If you're doing standalone prints that don't have to interface with anything else, e.g. art, non-articulated figurines, etc., then it becomes just a question of what's visually acceptable, and that's a matter both of scale and of the detail level you want. For typical tabletop-RPG scale, for example, most of the acutal visual features are going to be smaller than 3 mm, so that much error is not going to work out. It might work for large busts, though.
In any case, I would recommend trying to solve the underlying problem. Either change your grid snap, or work at a larger scale and just scale down the final model.
answered Jun 21 at 12:38
R..R..
9522 silver badges12 bronze badges
answered Jun 21 at 12:38
R..R..
9522 silver badges12 bronze badges
answered Jun 21 at 12:38
R..R..
9522 silver badges12 bronze badges
answered Jun 21 at 12:38
R..R..
9522 silver badges12 bronze badges
9522 silver badges12 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Welcome to the SE 3D Printing site. Your questions are also welcome, as well as your answers to your questions, and the questions of others.
I am not a Blender user. I use CAD systems because most of what I do I want to have a certain dimensional precision.
If the problem is as simple as "The overall object is designed to be 7.345 centimeters but I want it to be 7.000 centimeters," you can fix that when you print the model. Use the scaling feature of your slicer to scale by $(7.000/7.345)$ or $95.303%$. It will print as the size you want.
The problem may be deeper, though, in that you may be having trouble setting points within the model where you want them. In that case, the snap-to-grid feature is distorting your model's appearance and geometry, and there is nothing you can do to fix it.
If it can't be fixed by scaling, I would suggest that you should either turn off the snap-to features or set up a grid that matches the granularity you actually want for your design.
answered Jun 21 at 15:24
cmmcmm
2,2713 silver badges20 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Welcome to the SE 3D Printing site. Your questions are also welcome, as well as your answers to your questions, and the questions of others.
I am not a Blender user. I use CAD systems because most of what I do I want to have a certain dimensional precision.
If the problem is as simple as "The overall object is designed to be 7.345 centimeters but I want it to be 7.000 centimeters," you can fix that when you print the model. Use the scaling feature of your slicer to scale by $(7.000/7.345)$ or $95.303%$. It will print as the size you want.
The problem may be deeper, though, in that you may be having trouble setting points within the model where you want them. In that case, the snap-to-grid feature is distorting your model's appearance and geometry, and there is nothing you can do to fix it.
If it can't be fixed by scaling, I would suggest that you should either turn off the snap-to features or set up a grid that matches the granularity you actually want for your design.
answered Jun 21 at 15:24
cmmcmm
2,2713 silver badges20 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Welcome to the SE 3D Printing site. Your questions are also welcome, as well as your answers to your questions, and the questions of others.
I am not a Blender user. I use CAD systems because most of what I do I want to have a certain dimensional precision.
If the problem is as simple as "The overall object is designed to be 7.345 centimeters but I want it to be 7.000 centimeters," you can fix that when you print the model. Use the scaling feature of your slicer to scale by $(7.000/7.345)$ or $95.303%$. It will print as the size you want.
The problem may be deeper, though, in that you may be having trouble setting points within the model where you want them. In that case, the snap-to-grid feature is distorting your model's appearance and geometry, and there is nothing you can do to fix it.
If it can't be fixed by scaling, I would suggest that you should either turn off the snap-to features or set up a grid that matches the granularity you actually want for your design.
answered Jun 21 at 15:24
cmmcmm
2,2713 silver badges20 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Welcome to the SE 3D Printing site. Your questions are also welcome, as well as your answers to your questions, and the questions of others.
I am not a Blender user. I use CAD systems because most of what I do I want to have a certain dimensional precision.
If the problem is as simple as "The overall object is designed to be 7.345 centimeters but I want it to be 7.000 centimeters," you can fix that when you print the model. Use the scaling feature of your slicer to scale by $(7.000/7.345)$ or $95.303%$. It will print as the size you want.
The problem may be deeper, though, in that you may be having trouble setting points within the model where you want them. In that case, the snap-to-grid feature is distorting your model's appearance and geometry, and there is nothing you can do to fix it.
If it can't be fixed by scaling, I would suggest that you should either turn off the snap-to features or set up a grid that matches the granularity you actually want for your design.
answered Jun 21 at 15:24
cmmcmm
2,2713 silver badges20 bronze badges
answered Jun 21 at 15:24
cmmcmm
2,2713 silver badges20 bronze badges
answered Jun 21 at 15:24
cmmcmm
2,2713 silver badges20 bronze badges
answered Jun 21 at 15:24
cmmcmm
2,2713 silver badges20 bronze badges
2,2713 silver badges20 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
After some trouble shooting I realized what was wrong, and now it seems more like a non issue if anything. There's actually nothing wrong with the grid, and the vertices were snapped to it appropriately in top view. The problem was that that my vertices were not at the same elevation (in side view). The two seemed very close to being snapped appropriately on the grid in side view which is why it wasn't immediately obvious.
answered Jun 21 at 21:35
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Great that you found an answer. Don't forget to marked this as the accepted answer using the tick icon, so that it gets removed from the unanswered question queue. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– Greenonline♦
Jun 23 at 9:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
After some trouble shooting I realized what was wrong, and now it seems more like a non issue if anything. There's actually nothing wrong with the grid, and the vertices were snapped to it appropriately in top view. The problem was that that my vertices were not at the same elevation (in side view). The two seemed very close to being snapped appropriately on the grid in side view which is why it wasn't immediately obvious.
answered Jun 21 at 21:35
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Great that you found an answer. Don't forget to marked this as the accepted answer using the tick icon, so that it gets removed from the unanswered question queue. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– Greenonline♦
Jun 23 at 9:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
After some trouble shooting I realized what was wrong, and now it seems more like a non issue if anything. There's actually nothing wrong with the grid, and the vertices were snapped to it appropriately in top view. The problem was that that my vertices were not at the same elevation (in side view). The two seemed very close to being snapped appropriately on the grid in side view which is why it wasn't immediately obvious.
answered Jun 21 at 21:35
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
$endgroup$
After some trouble shooting I realized what was wrong, and now it seems more like a non issue if anything. There's actually nothing wrong with the grid, and the vertices were snapped to it appropriately in top view. The problem was that that my vertices were not at the same elevation (in side view). The two seemed very close to being snapped appropriately on the grid in side view which is why it wasn't immediately obvious.
answered Jun 21 at 21:35
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
edited Jun 22 at 0:55
answered Jun 21 at 21:35
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
answered Jun 21 at 21:35
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
answered Jun 21 at 21:35
Big MikeBig Mike
214 bronze badges
214 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Great that you found an answer. Don't forget to marked this as the accepted answer using the tick icon, so that it gets removed from the unanswered question queue. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– Greenonline♦
Jun 23 at 9:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Great that you found an answer. Don't forget to marked this as the accepted answer using the tick icon, so that it gets removed from the unanswered question queue. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– Greenonline♦
Jun 23 at 9:21
$begingroup$
Great that you found an answer. Don't forget to marked this as the accepted answer using the tick icon, so that it gets removed from the unanswered question queue. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– Greenonline♦
Jun 23 at 9:21
$begingroup$
Great that you found an answer. Don't forget to marked this as the accepted answer using the tick icon, so that it gets removed from the unanswered question queue. Thanks.
$endgroup$
– Greenonline♦
Jun 23 at 9:21
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to 3D Printing Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2f3dprinting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f10331%2fhow-precise-do-models-need-to-be-for-3d-printing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
It should be ok.
$endgroup$
– user77232
Jun 21 at 11:33
2
$begingroup$
@user77232: That's not something you can say unconditionally.
$endgroup$
– R..
Jun 21 at 12:14
1
$begingroup$
Why not turn off GridSnap if your primary concern is the length of a feature, rather than the endpoints of the feature?
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jun 21 at 13:07